Keywords

Entrepreneurship, Innovation, Marketing

Introduction

Entrepreneurship and marketing have emerged as important concepts at the interface of firm performance both in the short and long term. If we consider entrepreneurship as a process of innovativeness, proactivity, and ability to take business risk (e.g., Miller, 1983) we would enhance the link between entrepreneurship and marketing. Our research goal is focused on examining the interplay between these two branches of knowledge on literature and the ensuing findings aim at expanding the literature on the relationship between entrepreneurship and marketing by highlighting the main trends and themes. We posit that marketing and entrepreneurship disciplines are inseparable, so the word “market entrepreneurship” can be obtained.

Although ‘market entrepreneurship’ research has gained drive lately, the literature is diverse and fragmented, hindering the development of the subject as a promising research area. In this paper, an analysis of the ‘marketpreneurship’ literature is performed based on 254 citations of 11 central articles in order to examine the development and identify research themes and developmental patterns of ‘marketpreneurial’ research.

Marketing and entrepreneurship are widening their interactions, although some gaps are left behind. Multiple studies have indicated the link between marketing and entrepreneurship (e.g., Busenitz et al., 2014), but several research questions have remained unknown (Nicolic et al., 2017).

This paper addresses the sparse literature on ‘market entrepreneurship’ and related intersections between the entrepreneurial and marketing activities regarding some central themes that emerged from a Scopus literature survey. Hence, the focus of this Systematic Bibliometric Literature Review (LRSB) is on ‘market entrepreneurship’ most cited issues of:

(i) The combination of knowledge and innovation between knowledge-intensive and labor-intensive companies, defined as knowledge-intensive entrepreneurship (Scuotto et al., 2017).

(ii) Entrepreneurial development and simultaneous market competitive advantage (Nicolic et al., 2017).

iii) The role of social marketing, namely through dialogue within social networks, in the innovation process (Sajim & Ellingstad, 2016).

(iv) Vertical synergies between manufacturer and client in terms of innovation and marketing (Block et al., 2016).

(v) Feasibility of business incubation based upon entrepreneurial capability (Bijaoi & Regev, 2015).

(vi) The business marketing orientation in relation to the interface between entrepreneurship, marketing and innovation (Jones et al., 2013).

(vii) How ethical and entrepreneurial behaviours affect technological innovations (Ratten, 2012).

(viii) The importance of ethics and entrepreneurial orientation of an individual for the adoption behaviour on e-book devices (Ratten et al., 2010).

(ix) The entrepreneurial orientation behind the marketing in creating value for the customer (Hills et al., 2010).

(x) And how do marketing interplay with creative entrepreneurial thinking to meet specific goals (Briggs, 2011).

A framework for entrepreneurship in marketing and innovation is proposed, disclosing the key entrepreneurial issues in marketing innovation, thus contributing to potential research themes. Hence, the research debate is centred on erntrepreneurship, innovation and marketing through an accurate research approach, in order to ameliorate further knowledge building.

Methodological Approach

Knowledge building entails an in-depth, shared understanding of the concepts related to the research theme, towards new insights and further knowledge on the phenomenon, in which Knowledge building entails an in-depth, shared understanding of the concepts related to the research theme, towards new insights and further knowledge on the phenomenon, in which Systematic Bibliometric Literature Review (LRSB) is essential to properly acquaint the studied events. LRSB therefore defines the problem, whereas it assists in the search for new research approaches and goals (Rosário, 2021; Rosário et al., 2021; Raimundo & Rosário, 2021; Rosário & Cruz, 2019) is essential to properly acquaint the studied events. LRSB therefore defines the problem, whereas it assists in the search for new research approaches and goals (Rosário, 2021; Rosário et al., 2021; Raimundo & Rosário, 2021; Rosário & Cruz, 2019).

Once the goal of extending the entrepreneurship framework towards the innovation in terms of marketing on product development has been set, we research for ensuing primary information on academic databases, as they are both comprehensive search engines and a wide array of scientific resources at once. This method allows a comprehensive understanding of the theme, as well as its evolution over time, identifying researchers, publications and the most cited articles (Rosário, 2021; Rosário et al., 2021; Raimundo & Rosário, 2021; Rosário & Cruz, 2019).

An assessment of the integrative literature allows focusing on the main issues and results, either conceptual or empirical. The main limitation of such methodology relies on its content analysis and time-consuming process.

Hence, the research method proposed by Rosário (2021); Rosário, et al., (2021), Raimundo & Rosário (2021); Rosário & Cruz (2019) allows for comprehensive knowledge building, consisting of identifying, selecting, analysing and synthesising existing research on a certain topic, while revealing the major outputs, either conceptual or empirical. This review approach is applied on scientific documents with the purpose of foreseeing the theory, providing the information is inferred from the documents. The study is carried out as follows: Phase (i) Exploration (Step: Description; Exploration of beliefs and topics; Search initiation; Storage and organization of information; Selection and deselection of information; and Search expansion to incorporate multiple MODES (Media, Observation(s), Documents, Expert(s), Secondary Data): (ii) Interpretation (Information analysis and synthesis); and (iii) Communication (Presentation of the literature review report) (Table 1). This methodology ensures that the review is comprehensive, auditable and replicable while answering to particular research questions, following the integrative literature review (Rosário & Raimundo, 2021; Rosário, 2021; Rosário et al., 2021; Raimundo & Rosário, 2021; Rosário & Cruz, 2019).

Table 1 Process of Systematic Literature Review
Phase	Step	Description
Exploration	Step 1	Exploration of beliefs and topics
	Step 2	Search initiation
	Step 3	Storage and organization of information
	Step 4	Selection and deselection of information
	Step 5	Search expansion to incorporate multiple MODES (Media, Observation(s), Documents, Expert(s), Secondary Data
Interpretation	Step 6	Information analysis and synthesis
Communication	Step 7	Presentation of the literature review report

The database of scientific articles used was SCOPUS, the most important peer-review in the academic world. However, we consider that the study has the limitation of considering only the SCOPUS database, excluding the other academic bases.

In July 2021, the research was carried out using the Scopus database, using three keywords: "entrepreneurship", "innovation" and "marketing", in a comprehensive way (title, abstract and keywords) and restricted to scientific articles on the following research themes: business, management and accounting, from 2010 to 2021 (Table 2).

Table 2 Screening Methodology
Database Scopus	Screening	Publications
Meta-search	keyword: entrepreneurship	35,312
First Inclusion Criterion	keyword: entrepreneurshipSubject area Business, Management and Accounting	20,583
Second Inclusion Criterion	keyword: entrepreneurshipSubject area Business, Management and AccountingPeriod between 2010-2021	16,420
	keyword: entrepreneurshipSubject area Business, Management and AccountingPeriod between 2010-2021Exactkeyword: Innovation	1,342
Screening	keyword: entrepreneurshipSubject area Business, Management and AccountingPeriod between 2010-2021Exactkeyword: Innovation, MarketingPublished until July 2021	11

The 11 scientific articles are subsequently analyzed in a narrative manner to deepen the content and the possible derivation of common themes that directly answer the article's research question (Rosário & Raimundo, 2021; Rosário, 2021; Raimundo & Rosário, 2021; Rosário et al., 2021; Rosário & Cruz, 2019).

Publication Distribution

Peer-reviewed articles on the topic be period 2010-2021. There has been a modest contribution from Scopus indexed publications over the period 2010-2021 on the subject, with a total of 11.

Figure 1 summarizes the peer-reviewed literature published for the period 2010-2021. Publications were classified as follows: all publications with a single publication: E A M Ekonomie A Management; Emerald Emerging Markets Case Studies; International Journal Of Entrepreneurship And Innovation Management; International Journal Of Innovation And Learning; International Journal Of Productivity And Performance Management; Journal Of High Technology Management Research; Journal Of Research In Marketing And Entrepreneurship; Journal Of Technology Transfer; Marketing Intelligence And Planning; Research Policy; Service Industries Journal.

Researchers have not shown much interest in researching the subject of the influence of entrepreneurship on marketing innovation, since 2017 there have been no publications.

In Table 3 we analyze for the Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR), the best quartile and the H index by publication.

The Research Policy is the most cited publication with 3,670 (SJR), Q1 and H index 238. There are a total of 3 journals in Q1, 5 journals in Q2 and 3 journals in Q3 and there are no journals in Q4. Journals in the best Q1 quartile represent 27% of the 11 journal titles; the best quartile Q2 represents 45%, the best quartile Q3 represents 27% and, finally, in Q4 there are no journals in the 11 published.

As evident from Table 3, the significant majority of articles on influence of entrepreneurship on marketing innovation rank on the Q2 best quartile index.

Table 3 Scimago Journal & Country Rank Impact Factor
Title	SJR	Best Quartile	H index
Research Policy	3,670	Q1	238
Journal Of Technology Transfer	1,770	Q1	79
Service Industries Journal	1,180	Q1	66
Marketing Intelligence And Planning	0,750	Q2	70
Journal Of High Technology Management Research	0,680	Q2	46
Journal Of Research In Marketing And Entrepreneurship	0,500	Q2	21
International Journal Of Productivity And Performance Management	0,420	Q2	61
E A M Ekonomie A Management	0,320	Q2	22
International Journal Of Entrepreneurship And Innovation Management	0,240	Q3	24
International Journal Of Innovation And Learning	0,230	Q3	2
Emerald Emerging Markets Case Studies	0,200	Q3	5

The subject areas covered by the 11 scientific articles were: Business, Management and Accounting (11); Economics, Econometrics and Finance (3); Decision Sciences (2); Social Sciences (2); and with 1 (Computer Science; Engineering).

The most quoted article was “The effect of social networking sites and absorptive capacity on SMES’ innovation performance” from Scuotto, et al., (2017) with 96 quotes published in the Journal of Technology Transfer 1,770 (SJR), the best quartile (Q1) and with H index (79). The published article focuses on the relevance of the digital ecosystem with a focus on the role of social networking sites in innovation and knowledge.

In Figure 2, we can analyze the evolution of citations of articles published between ≤2010 and 2021. The number of quotes shows a positive net growth with R2 of 2.9% for the period ≤2010-2021, with 2020 reaching 176 citations.

The h-index was used to ascertain the productivity and impact of the published work, based on the largest number of articles included that had at least the same number of citations. Of the documents considered for the h-index, 7 have been cited at least 7 times.

In Annex I, the citations of all scientific articles from the ≤2010 to 2021 period are analyzed, with a total of 254 citations, the article "Innoz Technologies: the powerhouse of innovation" by Puri & Kumar (2015) during this period (≤2010 to 2021) was not cited.

Annex II examines the self-citation of the document during the period ≤2010 to 2021, 6 documents were self-cited 38 times, the article "The effect of social networking sites and absorptive capacity on SMES’ innovation performance" By Scuotto, et al., (2017) published in Journal of Technology Transfer and "Ethics, entrepreneurship and the adoption of e-book devices" by Ratten & Donahue (2011) published in the International Journal of Innovation and Learning were cited 11 times.

In Figure 3, a bibliometric study was carried out to investigate and identify indicators on the dynamics and evolution of scientific information using the main keywords. The study of bibliometric results using the scientific software VOSviewe, aims at identifying the main research keywords “Entrepreneurship”, “Innovation”, “Marketing”.

The research was based upon the studied articles on influence of entrepreneurship on marketing innovation. The linked keywords can be examined in Figure 4 making it possible to make clear the network of keywords that appear together/linked in each scientific article, allowing to know the topics studied by the researches and to identify future research trends. In Figure 5, it is presented a profusion of co-citation with a unit of analysis of cited references.

Theoretical Perspectives

The analysis follows the aforementioned subjects, focusing on those key themes and trends of literature. This leads to the identification of nine main topics on ‘market entpreneurship’ (The combination of knowledge and innovation; Entrepreneurial development and competitive advantage; The social marketing and social networking, through the innovation process; Vertical synergies of innovation and marketing; Regional business incubation and entrepreneurial capability; Entrepreneurship, marketing and innovation; Entrepreneurial behaviours and technological innovations; Entrepreneurial orientation and marketing in creating value; and Marketing interplay with creative entrepreneurial thinking).

The Combination of Knowledge and Innovation

The combination of knowledge and innovation has become a basis amid knowledge and labor-intensive enterprises. An increasing number of enterprises are defined as knowledge intensive entrepreneurship ventures that have been broadly studied in relation to their environment. However, hardly any research has addressed this phenomenon to enterprises digital environment by taking on mostly a qualitatively approach. A digital environment centred on the role of social networking sites and in connection with both innovation and knowledge is paramount (Scuotto et al., 2017). Exploring social networking sites can offer information about individuals and their networks, which can be used for business objectives. Also, it enables firms to innovate by absorbing external knowledge.

Entrepreneurial Development and Competitive Advantage

The literature that tests the causality between entrepreneurial activities and marketing in achieving and keeping firms’ distinct market advantage is scarce (Nicolic et al., 2017). It focuses on firm profitability, emphasizing at once organizational changes and risk both in marketing and entrepreneurship. It posits that entrepreneurial activities always comprehend a threat of failure, thus the need to combine marketing with entrepreneurship in order to manage organizational changes at an acceptable risk. The findings expand the literature on the relationship between entrepreneurship and marketing by depicting its causality-driven relationship through the multi-scale cycle or the so-called “spiral of success” (Nicolic et al., 2017).

The Social Marketing and Social Networking, through the Innovation Process

The levels of communication of different social actors at different points of a social innovation project (e.g., Hewlett Packard) were examined in the light of a social innovation models (e.g., Sajim & Ellingstad, 2016). The effect of communication networks in social interaction was examined. A social innovation model is attempted by understanding the levels of communication of different social actors at different points of a social innovation project. The importance of partnerships and communication seems to be emphasized in the motivation of employees toward innovation (Sajim & Ellingstad, 2016).

Vertical Synergies of Innovation and Marketing

The pathway to commercializing user innovations, specifically, the vertical diversification of a user firm into an upstream industry supplying capital goods, and ensuing coexistence of user and manufacturing units is also addressed (e.g., Block et al., 2016). Such coexistence tends to create synergies regarding innovation, marketing, and financials. It enables the manufacturing unit to benefit from user innovations in its new product development, while the user unit profits from improved tools. There is also evidence from firms, from distinct sectors (e.g., foundation engineering) to derive a set of propositions concerning the conditions under which user–manufacturer diversification is attractive and viable in the long run. These conditions relate in general to innovation, marketing, the organization, and financial aspects (Block et al., 2016).

Regional Business Incubation and Entrepreneurial Capability

Another stream of literature focuses on two main and related issues: assessing whether the necessary entrepreneurial skills are present according to Gladwell's Law (The Law of the Few, which means that in any situation roughly 80 percent of the work will be done by 20 percent of the participants, resembling the Pareto’s Law) for the few in regional contexts (e.g., the Negev region in western Israel), and identifies the economic development model that can generate viral development (e.g., Bijaoi & Regev, 2015). The regional level of motivation is assessed. Gladwell's law was used to understand the potentially positive effect of each entrepreneur on others and on economic development in general (Bijaoi & Regev, 2015).

Entrepreneurship, Marketing and Innovation

Entrepreneurial marketing orientation in small software technology firms in relation to firm growth is also explored in literature (e.g., Jones et al., 2013). Currently, there are hardly any comparative studies of knowledge-intensive technology firms, and no comparative cross-country studies which consider firm growth and orientation from a ME perspective. ME acknowledge the interface between entrepreneurship, marketing and innovation. Existing literature posits that firms adopting other strategic orientations combined with a market orientation are more likely to outperform their competitors (e.g., Jones et al., 2013).

Entrepreneurial Behaviours and Technological Innovations

Some literature focuses on the interplay between entrepreneurial behaviour and innovation: highlighting understanding the antecedents of a person's intention to adopt e-Books and cloud computing based on their ethical orientation (Ratten et al., 2010 & Ratten, 2012), for instance – in other words, the way ethical behaviours affect technological innovation. Cognitive theory is emphasized in order to understand how a higher ethical and entrepreneurial orientation will lead to a person adopting cloud computing. Furthermore, it seems that the marketing, learning and outcome expectancy a person has about cloud computing will positively affect their intention to take on this technology (Ratten, 2012).

Entrepreneurial Orientation and Marketing in Creating Value

Another current of literature approaches Marketing Entrepreneurship (ME) concept as such, i.e., the interface of the two research fields (e.g., Hills et al., 2010). Those writings over enhance the issues of definition, theoretical foundations, historical and new empirical findings. A different definition of ME is proposed, especially taking into account the entrepreneurial orientation behind a new marketing concept and the goal of creating value for the customer through means such as innovation, creativity, networking or flexibility. An overview of the ME in the last 20 years (Hills et al., 2010) is also provided.

Marketing Interplay with Creative Entrepreneurial Thinking

Some literature aims to outline the challenges and tasks involved in organizing and marketing a new venture from conception to sales, around the character of some individual entrepreneurs (e.g., Briggs, 2011) These writings present interesting situations with which readers can identify and apply knowledge and skills associated with entrepreneurship and marketing, and link this with the key learning objectives of a new venture marketing study unit. Also, these case studies provide students with the opportunity to work through the critical steps involved in the new venture marketing process, placing them in the development entrepreneur’s shoes as they work thorough their analysis.

Methods

In this section, we report on the methods and unit of analysis employed by the studies. The studies make use of a wide range of methods, from case studies and surveys to mixed methods. When examining the methods and unit of analysis in connection we found that, across contexts, 1 out of 11 articles focuses on ‘individuals’ or ‘entrepreneurs’ as the unit of analysis and 9 focus on firm-level analysis. Among the 11 firm-level studies, there is a clear emphasis on qualitative analysis (6 articles) as opposed to quantitative analysis (2 articles) and mixed methods (3 articles). One article (Briggs, 2011) studies entrepreneurial projects, whereas communities are ample. These include Scuotto, et al., (2017) on Small- To Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs) from different sets of global enterprises, both knowledge intensive (e.g. management consulting) and labour-intensive (e.g. high tech and electronics) that were analyzed via the Partial Least Square- Path Modelling the relationships between social networking sites, absorptive capacity, and innovation performance were measured. Also Bijaoi & Regev (2015) assess the personal and commercial capabilities of each entrepreneur, by two groups of parametres, one describing the personal profile and the other describing the commercial behaviour of the entrepreneurs.

On the qualitative stream, Sajim & Ellingstad (2016) define social innovation, social entrepreneurship, corporate social responsibility and social business, focuses on the data available through the internet and papers and articles, complemented with a content analysis of the terminology that is used for social innovation projects during innovation process. Block, et al., (2016) use a multiple case study approach to show how user entrepreneurship can originate from established corporations rather than from individual user innovators. Jones, et al., (2013) contribute to Entrepreneurial Marketing (EM) from the small firm orientation perspective by using a qualitative research framework, which contains 15 identified ME dimensions, to explore ME orientation activities, attitudes and behaviours shown in two groups of small knowledge-intensive software technology firms. Briggs (2011) constructed a case around key principles of marketing and entrepreneurship linked to a description of a contemporary venture written from a participant observer perspective, supplemented with knowledge from interviews and archival research.

Finally, mixed methods are used by Ratten, et al., (2011); Ratten (2012); in which predictions are tested through a survey, whereas the research began by conducting 3 focus groups designed to gather young consumers’ opinions on cloud computing ethical issues.

The state of ‘Market entrepreneurship’

Despite the scholarly call for building theory, ‘market entrepreneurship’ literature is fragmented and ad hoc in nature (e.g., Nicolic et al., 2017). Our analysis of the literature clearly reveals the diverse theoretical and methodological approaches used to study marketing and entrepreneurship. We summarize the key aspects covered in the literature to consolidate and delineate the domain ‘market entrepreneurship’ set out in the objectives.

First, cooperation and networking are deemed as key to entrepreneurial marketing. The factors that ensure the success of user–manufacturer diversification, the link between user innovation and corporate strategy, were found. Four groups of factors were underscored: a continuous stream of innovations, a good reputation of the focal firm in its original market, the conflicts between the user and manufacturing unit that might impede diversification and its success, and the diversification that helps to cover the investment required for user innovation (e.g., Block et al., 2016). Such networking is also underscored in other works (e.g., Scuotto et al., 2017): findings showed that SMEs’ absorptive capacity mainly affects their innovation performance along with the entrepreneurs’ ability to create innovations and entrepreneurs’ willing to make solid collaborations with their digital environment. Entrepreneurs carry out new combination of knowledge, adopting an experiential and collaborative approach towards SMEs. A partnership with another business with customers can be a way forward. Enterprises tend not merely to lure consumers to sell products but also to cooperate with them, so as to generate innovations (Scuotto et al., 2017).

Second, innovation is considered a strategic issue for ME. It is suggested that the power of certain words related to social innovation in e-mails and articles enhance the importance of concepts and words used in social innovation (eg., Sajim & Ellingstad, 2016). Others contribute to the literature on innovation in three ways. First, it is shown how user entrepreneurship can originate from established firms rather than from individual user innovators. A new path to user innovation commercialization is proposed, while revealing the factors that favour both the move toward and the success of user–manufacturer diversification. A new link between user innovation and corporate strategy (e.g., Block et al., 2016) is also proposed.

Third, the individual entrepreneur is considered key for innovation. Most entrepreneurs are considered ready to cooperate and contribute to generating common commercial interest, having the necessary personal profile and commercial attitude to succeed (Bijaoi & Regev, 2015). Some writings (e.g., Jones et al., 2013) focus on entrepreneurial marketing orientation qualitative framework to investigate entrepreneur activities, attitudes and behaviours to conclude how and why entrepreneurial marketing orientation may lead to sustainable growth for firms in challenging markets. It is also shown that there is interplay between individual ethical and entrepreneurship issues (e.g., Ratten, 2012), while others posit that effective marketing requires creative thinking and enterprising adoption of relevant marketing principles to address the specific and well defined objectives of the venture (e.g., Briggs, 2011).

To sum up, one can conclude that ‘Market entrepreneurship’ has become an important research area at the interface of the two disciplines (ME). This paper has identified a critical mass of ME research. However, ME literature is highly fragmented, calling for development.

Based on an analysis of the literature, we identified three key ME research themes and developmental patterns, namely ME networking, innovation and individual entrepreneurial behaviour.

Acknowledgement

We would like to express our gratitude to the Editor and the Referees. They offered extremely valuable suggestions or improvements. The authors were supported by the GOVCOPP Research Center of Universidade de Aveiro and ISEC Lisboa.

References

1. Bijaoui, I., &amli; Regev, D. (2015). Entrelireneurshili and viral develoliment in rural Western Negev in Israel.&nbsli;Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrelireneurshili,&nbsli;17(1), 54-66.
2. Block, J.H., Henkel, J., Schweisfurth, T.G., &amli; Stiegler, A. (2016). Commercializing user innovations by vertical diversification: The user-manufacturer innovator.&nbsli;Research liolicy,&nbsli;45(1), 244-259.
3. Briggs, M. (2011). liegasus town: Innovative marketing of a new lirolierty venture.&nbsli;Marketing Intelligence and lilanning,&nbsli;29(6), 602-610.
4. Hills, G.E., Hultman, C.M., Kraus, S., &amli; Schulte, R. (2010). History, theory and evidence of entrelireneurial marketing - An overview.&nbsli;International Journal of Entrelireneurshili and Innovation Management,&nbsli;11(1), 3-18.
5. Jones, R., Suoranta, M., &amli; Rowley, J. (2013). Entrelireneurial marketing: A comliarative study.&nbsli;Service Industries Journal,&nbsli;33(7-8), 705-719.
6. Nikolić, S.T., Gradojević, N., Đaković, V., Mladenović, V., &amli; Stanković, J. (2017). The marketing-entrelireneurshili liaradox: A frequency-domain analysis. [liaradox of marketing-business: Frequency analysis of domains] E and M: Economics and Management,&nbsli;20(3), 207-218.
7. liuri, R., &amli; Kumar, A. (2015). Innoz technologies: The liowerhouse of innovation.&nbsli;Emerald Emerging Markets Case Studies,&nbsli;5(1), 1-13.
8. Raimundo, R., &amli; Rosário, A. (2021). Blockchain system in the Higher Education. Euroliean Journal of Investigation in Health, lisychology and Education, 11(1), 276-293. ISSN 2254-9625.
9. Ratten, V. (2012). Entrelireneurial and ethical adolition behaviour of cloud comliuting.&nbsli;Journal of High Technology Management Research,&nbsli;23(2), 155-164.
10. Ratten, V., lialumbo, A.J., &amli; Donahue, J.F. (2011). Ethics, entrelireneurshili and the adolition of e-book devices.&nbsli;International Journal of Innovation and Learning,&nbsli;10(3), 310-325.
11. Rosário, A. (2021). Research-based guidelines for marketing information systems. International Journal of Business Strategy and Automation, 2(1), 1-16,
12. Rosário, A., &amli; Cruz, R. (2019). Determinants of innovation in digital marketing. innovation liolicy and trends in the digital age. Journal of Reviews on Global Economics, 8, 1722-1731.
13. Rosário, A., &amli; Raimundo, R. (2021). Imliortance of value liroliositions in marketing: Research and challenges. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 20(2).
14. Rosário, A., Fernandes, F., Raimundo, R., &amli; Cruz, R. (2021). Determinants of nascent entrelireneurshili develoliment. In Carrizo Moreira, A., &amli; Dantas, J.G.(Edition), Handbook of Research on Nascent Entrelireneurshili and Creating New Ventures, 172-193. IGI Global.
15. Salim-Saji, B., &amli; Ellingstad, li. (2016). Social innovation model for business lierformance and innovation.&nbsli;International Journal of liroductivity and lierformance Management,&nbsli;65(2), 256-274.
16. Scuotto, V., Del Giudice, M., &amli; Carayannis, E.G. (2017). The effect of social networking sites and absorlitive caliacity on SMES’ innovation lierformance. Journal of Technology Transfer,&nbsli;42(2), 409-424.